Well said. I am a Chan fan but always felt his P/E a little lacking. But this year he is superb. He has it all now.

Well Patrick still needs to work on emoting or communicating with the audience to please a lot of skating enthusiasts as well he needs to work on a little mor epolish on the spins and jumps pus add say a quad sal or flip. If Javier and all are doing quads including the Tak (Dai) well Chan needs to one up them (or at least match them. I actually don't like his programs in some ways but I think they are brilliant - if that makes sense . I don't like the music that much but they are well done and if you were a judge just because it isn't your fave music but it is well done it should be marked accordingly not because you didn't like the music ie. someone does western and you hate western music but froma competitive aspect it cans till win if it is well done. Just your taste is different. I will have to try to review this site; I wonder why Johnny dropped out. He still had a chance to move up and the scores show it too. I know it is a different competition but what will it take for Chan to match the scores of Tak (Dai) like at the WTT this year? Even with the mistakes it doesn't look like he would score enough.

Chan's BV is 5th(!) only. The rest did over-generous GOE of 14 points and abnormal PCS.

It is completely illogical to look at Base Value before the positive or negative GOE is factored in and conclude that since Chan's BV is "5th(!) only"...what are you trying to say, exactly? The others had falls or landing errors that resulted in negative GOE, but that's not going to show up in a Base Value comparison.

But you probably didn't want to compare TES, because Chan had the highest TES. As he should have because he landed two clean quads. He lost BV with his doubled jumps, but he's also a good spinner and his other jumps were clean, so he racked up his GOE that way.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but when judges gave Daisuke 80+ PCS on his bad day like at CoC last week, and 90+ to Patrick with a couple of doubled jumps like tonight, my understanding is that judges are normally ready to reward Daisuke 90+ and Patrick 95+ for their perfect skates, right?
What I donot understand is why judges can NOT give Takahiko at least 80+ with his decent skate like tonight??? I do not like. AT ALL.

Sad Menshov missed the podium for less than 1 point...

As for LP programs for each skater, I will comment tomorrow after I watch them on TV. Almost 2am time to go to bed. Good night, you guys!

Please correct me if I am wrong, but when judges gave Daisuke 80+ PCS on his bad day like at CoC last week, and 90+ to Patrick with a couple of doubled jumps like tonight, my understanding is that judges are normally ready to reward Daisuke 90+ and Patrick 95+ for their perfect skates, right?
What I donot understand is why judges can NOT give Takahiko at least 80+ with his decent skate like tonight??? I do not like. AT ALL.

Sad Menshov missed the podium for less than 1 point...

As for LP programs for each skater, I will comment tomorrow after I watch them on TV. Almost 2am time to go to bed. Good night, you guys!

I agree; I really enjoy watching Kozuka and always feel that he gets a little low-balled on his PCS.

But you probably didn't want to compare TES, because Chan had the highest TES.

This statement doesn't make any sense. How I could "didn't want to" if I was speaking about 14 points of GOE plus to BV and therefore TES in general. BV is the most objective mark in the current judging system because it has lesser human factor involved. Surely when the skater doesn't challenge top class elements like 3A and ends up with double jumps, it's quite easy to get high GOE for safe elements.

It is completely illogical to look at Base Value before the positive or negative GOE is factored in and conclude that since Chan's BV is "5th(!) only"...what are you trying to say, exactly? The others had falls or landing errors that resulted in negative GOE, but that's not going to show up in a Base Value comparison.

I think it is fair to the extent that it is often argued that Chan has the most difficult programs and this justifies his scoring - but if you look at BVs, that's not usually the case. Now, you can argue that the difficulty in what he does lies to a large extent outside the elements. But the point still stands that he got a very good score considering the number of jumps he doubled.

OTOH, I can't work up any real indignation about it, since he clearly deserved to win considering the standard of his performance relative to the rest of the field. And V/T's overscore was far worse.

This statement doesn't make any sense. How I could "didn't want to" if I was speaking about 14 points of GOE plus to BV and therefore TES in general. BV is the most objective mark in the current judging system because it has lesser human factor involved. Surely when the skater doesn't challenge top class elements like 3A and ends up with double jumps, it's quite easy to get high GOE for safe elements.

You also conveniently forgot to count falls and hands down, step outs or edge calls, which you are very capable of counting when it is Patrick Chan who made those mistakes. None of the above can be reflected in the BV but there were plenty of those tonight. Chan's GOE is high in part because he made no deductible error whereas other skaters made several in their programs, including at least one fall from each of the top 5. Therefore, GOE in these cases are objective in that they properly reflected the deductible errors that have to be considered and a fall on jump usually produces around -3 for GOE, about 99% of the time.

What you are doing is quoting the protocol out of the context, in your very deliberate attempt to continue your infamous "Chanflation" allegation. Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of members here are quite knowledgeable. People here know for example, when Kozuka UR both of his Quads, including a fall on one of them, he may have relatively high BV for those attempts but he would also rightfully receive lesser GOE, plus a mandatory deduction that is not being reflected in the BV. So yes, you could make an argument his overall program was more difficult but it remains a paper tiger if he can't land them properly. I could load a program with Quad Flip, Quad Lutz and other Quads and my BV would look superb - only if it were so easy.

I don't know if you realize it but your continuous outrageous and verbal assaults on Patrick Chan has turned many otherwise ambivalent members who were previously indifferent re: Chan to sympathize with him. The fictional outrage really isn't working very well because people aren't stupid. Not a single soul here has contested the result but you can somehow dig the BV in an attempt to create a controversy when there is none to be found. Take my advice, just let it go, otherwise very soon, no one is going to take your posts seriously.

This statement doesn't make any sense. How I could "didn't want to" if I was speaking about 14 points of GOE plus to BV and therefore TES in general. BV is the most objective mark in the current judging system because it has lesser human factor involved. Surely when the skater doesn't challenge top class elements like 3A and ends up with double jumps, it's quite easy to get high GOE for safe elements.

BV only reflects the base value of jumps rotated and levels of spins/footwork done. It does not take into account execution. So saying that Patrick Chan had the 5th place BV and Oda and Kozuka had higher BV is meaningless because it doesn't reflect the fact that Oda and Kozuka fell. Overall, sure, they had more rotations in their jumps than Patrick to get that higher BV, but they didn't land all those jumps cleanly. BV is NOT the most objective mark in the judging system--by itself, it's not really a mark at all.

It's not at all unusual for one skater to have a higher BV than another skater, but the first skater with the higher BV makes multiple errors while the second skater skated cleanly. If PCS is similar for both, the second skater will have the higher TES and will deserve the higher placement.

Patrick got the highest GOE for his two quads--not safe elements at all.

Originally Posted by Buttercup

I think it is fair to the extent that it is often argued that Chan has the most difficult programs and this justifies his scoring - but if you look at BVs, that's not usually the case. Now, you can argue that the difficulty in what he does lies to a large extent outside the elements. But the point still stands that he got a very good score considering the number of jumps he doubled.

But BV doesn't, by itself, reflect number of quads attempted, number of 3As, number of difficult combos, etc. A skater with a backloaded FS with no triple/triples can possiibly have a higher BV than a skater with a triple/triple at the beginning of his/her program. There are far more limitations in using BV to make an argument about the difficulty of a skater's performance than advantages.

Patrick's BV was lower than usual today because he doubled three intended triples--the axel, the loop, and the salchow (I could see him pause before the salchow, wondering if he should go for it). But he did what no other man did, which was land two sparkling quads. Comparing BV alone doesn't reflect how difficult that was. If landing two quads was so easy, why didn't any one else land them?

Chan's GOE is high in part because he made no deductible error whereas other skaters made several in their programs, including at least one fall from each of the top 5.

Patrick would also have at least one fall if challenged 3A as others did. He knew that, so he didn't jump it. Skating safer elements like double jumps provided better GOE. BV says that his FS was not that technically difficult in the first place.

I think it is fair to the extent that it is often argued that Chan has the most difficult programs and this justifies his scoring - but if you look at BVs, that's not usually the case. Now, you can argue that the difficulty in what he does lies to a large extent outside the elements. But the point still stands that he got a very good score considering the number of jumps he doubled.

It has always been a trade off between popping a jump or rotate it but risk falling. Some people even suggested that the new CoP system overly rewards attempts over clean jumps. FYI, the doubles Chan did today lowered his BV by approximately 12 points today. That's a lot of points left on the table. Had he executed those jumps as planned, his BV would have been the highest by far. So his overall program is still one of the most difficult out there, without a doubt. Some other skaters like Javier Fernandez know that in order to compete with Chan, they have to do more, hence Fernandez has an even more ambitious program on paper - and Kozuka is in the same camp as well seeing his two Quads and two Triple Axels. The consequence of such high risk programs that these skaters are attempting is the higher likelihood that they will make errors. I sometimes wonder if Chan's talk about adding a 2nd type of Quad in his competitive repertoire is merely a strategic propaganda to psych out his closest competitiors, in order to push them to take even more risks - so much, that they just crush and burn. Realistically, if Chan does his two Quad toes and 7 Triples + 1 Double Axel cleanly, he will win Sochi Olympics. Does he need to add a 3rd Quad into his FS program? I can't see why that would be necessary. So I think Chan would be quite happy he doesn't have the highest planned BV out there and let others drive themselves crazy over this. People often don't realize Figure Skating is as much a strategic sport as much as an athletic one. In order to be the best, you have to use your mind as much as your body, or else Odaesque errors would be all over the place. Thankfully, most FS skaters are quite smart, only if one day, Oda can do the same.